Of course we all consume things by buying them. Some things we absolutely need, others we just want. But we often buy things that we have full intentions of using, (and possibly even enjoying), but it just doesn't happen. Or it happens for a couple of weeks. Obvious examples of such items are shoes, clothes, exercise equipment, but there are many others. So why do we do it? Is it overbuying or underusing? I say, it's often buying the wrong thing. Clothes are often bought because they're on sale and they're "not bad", but you don't really like them enough to actually wear them. Buying objects that are slightly more expensive can often prevent Buying and Not Using, (B.A.N.U.). (Now there's some rationalization for buying more expensive items).

There's no real issue with Buying and Not Using, (B.A.N.U.), except that it could become a drain on the budget and such behavior unnecessarily takes up storage space. What's weird is that despite having items that sit, we're often reluctant to part ways with them. Donating BANU items to charity would make sense, but I and many others are guilty of never getting around to it.

I ask all of you Roundtablers and guest readers to comment and mention those things you buy yet don't use. Tell us why you think you bought these items and don't use them as well. Extra points for uniqueness.

RW has had a lot of time lately to ponder and write poetry that only a genius could interpret. Even the way you answer his Roundtable post for this week is open. I was inspired by my recent lawn-mowing expedition. Prose, rhyming text, or clever comments are all welcome over at his blog Chasing Vincenzo.

I often see talk shows express the need for women to have role models so that they don't feel the pressure of having to look too thin or too beautiful and to be told that they are wonderful just the way they are. This is an admirable pursuit as it helps girls grow up into well-adjusted women. It also helps prevent anorexia, bulimia, and a host of other self-esteem issues. But isn't anybody worried about the young men in our society? They have just as much pressure to look good, and they also are pressured to be athletic, earn an education, and make a good living to provide for a future family. To be fair, I have seen public service efforts catered towards helping boys from various ethnic groups. These are great too, although their angle is different and doesn't cover mainstream, non-minority boys.

Societal expectations for boys as they grow into men are high. Physically, young men are supposed to have six-pack abs, be 6'0 or taller and well-built. At least boys can do something about being muscular; eat healthy food and exercise. But the pressure to look good is something that leads young men to sometimes over-exercise and take steroids and unhealthy nutritional supplements. We should address this too. Just as heavy women have difficulty in the dating world, so do out-of-shape guys.

Now that the world is less sexist towards women, men are also expected to help out around the house, and encounter women in the dating world who are more educated and can be just as choosy about looks and background. It's all fair and right, but it creates a conflict that didn't exist before. In "the old days", (based on my perception of it), small conservative communities led to dating within the community and women were more dependent on men because they typically did not become educated and were not taught to take care of themselves in the same way as today. This made them less choosy, and I would also say less disrespectful of men that wouldn't make the modern day cut. Today, how many times do you see it considered funny for a woman to slam a guy and outright embarrass him with rejection in front of others? I always say, "you can't blame a guy for trying," and women should be appreciative of respectful, well-spirited approaches by men. Many heterosexual women wouldn't like a world in which men didn't approach them. If a man rejects a woman disrespectfully, it is considered cruel. Also troubling are the countless jokes, (some even put forth by men), that say that men aren't smart, and women are better. I thought we were equal. I say that we are at least smart enough to pursue women. This should not be discounted.

Men should never be ashamed of being the way we were physiologically "meant" to be, (within moral and legal constraints of course). Women don't apologize for being womanly and neither should we apologize for being men. I know that some people are going to find this post by Googling some key terms, and a few will think that I'm sexist, but you would have to get to know me to understand that I support sexual equality completely. I just think it's time men take a stand for themselves and that we look out for young boys so that they can develop into great men. It's in everybody's best interest.

Deni is staying true to form with this week's Roundtable blogpost in which he talks about things he absolutely hates. And he asks whether it's alright to hate certain things and people. It doesn't matter what you say, he's still gonna hate whatever he wants to hate. But hop on over to his blog, Out of Tune, and let it out. What are your views on hating and what do you hate?

It's the turn of the wise and creative person who calls himself The Beige One, and in his blog, Missives from The Beige, he ponders what enables each of us to unwind and detach ourselves from our mind. For me it's music or the computer, but the other Roundtablers' answers may surprise you. Hop on over to his blogpost to provide your method of mental dis-missiveness.

As our planet becomes increasingly global, it seems as though the world is all becoming the same in one earth melting pot. Thanks to transcontinental travel, immigration, intercultural marriages, and technology such as the internet and DVD's, the transfer of ideas and culture occurs quickly. But some of these are adopted by most of the world, while others are not. Additionally, what people tend to forget is that in our beliefs and preferences, we all branch out in different directions from the same tree of humanity. Perhaps the best analogy is that we all started from one tree, it forked into perhaps 15 different trunks and the branches are crossing back over and intersecting branches from other trunks. Extremist groups are on branches that shoot off to the edges and don't intersect with other branches. They filter ideas and beliefs and use them to keep the branch growing further away from their original trunk. Having spent many weeks in different cities around the good old U.S. of A., the differences in local cultures have become apparent. I would venture to say that cultural differences were smaller in the early 1900's, (when the tree of humanity was smaller).

On one hand, we're growing together more tightly into a tangled web that can never be unraveled; on the other hand, our tangled branches must contend with the actions of those from the fringes because they will always be connected to us in some way. Luckily, as the branches grow out further, they become narrower relative to the other branches on the tree. Hopefully the tangled web of branches will be one that is beneficial to the tree on the whole and can resist the renegade branches. Even if the renegades don't hurt the tree, I worry that the webs will become larger, stronger, and more impenetrable. This could result in large webs that will be in continual conflict with each other. One could argue that it is already happening with the conservative Christian world and the radical Islamic world. Hopefully these and any other webs that form can coexist peacefully, but I'm not optimistic. Perhaps we must be confronted by another tree in the forest for our own tree branches to work toegether in harmony.

I know that this analogy isn't perfect because branches don't tangle together on most trees, but once I started with the ultra-nerdy ultra-philosophical analogy, I felt compelled to carry it through. I think it has some merit. What are your thoughts?